Recommendations to Address Race in Washington’s Juvenile Legal System: 2022 Recommendations to Criminal Justice Stakeholders in Washington

Recommendations to Address Race in Washington’s Juvenile Legal System: 2022 Recommendations to Criminal Justice Stakeholders in Washingto

Report and Recommendations to Address Race in Washington’s Juvenile Legal System: 2021 Report to the Washington Supreme Court

Report and Recommendations to Address Race in Washington’s Juvenile Legal System: 2021 Report to the Washington Supreme Cour

Individualising justice: pre-sentence reports in the Irish criminal justice system

Pre-sentence or pre-sanction reports (PSRs) provide judges with information on the personal circumstances, background and attitude of a defendant, an assessment of risk of reoffending, and typically include sentence recommendations1. Yet despite their potential to contribute to the sentencing process in Ireland, we know relatively little about how PSRs are constructed in practice, when and in what circumstances they are requested, how probation officers construct and ‘craft’ their report, how judges view or interpret the contents of the report, and perhaps most significantly, the impact that such reports have on sentencing practice. Previous sentencing research has shown that social and moral reasoning, in the form of information about the character, personality and circumstances of an individual, can be highly influential in sentencing, especially when judges are choosing between custodial and non-custodial penalties (Tombs and Jagger, 2006; Millie et al., 2007; Maguire, 2008; Tata et al., 2008; Beyens and Scheirs, 2010; Phoenix, 2010). While legal factors are also important, research shows that judicial interpretations of the offender’s character and attitude, as well as their interpretations of certain aspects of an individual’s personal and social circumstances, including employment and relationship status, are influential in terms of their decision to impose either a custodial or non-custodial penalty (Tombs and Jagger, 2006; Millie et al., 2007; Maguire, 2008, 2010, 2011). The type of information provided in pre-sentence reports is also the type of information that is influential in sentencing, however, to date there has been no research in the Irish context exploring the relationship between pre-sentence reports and sentencing. Similarly, the contribution that probation officers make to sentencing, through the provision of PSRs, is relatively unexplored (Carr and Maguire, 2012). Traditionally the role of the probation officer in the criminal justice system was considered to be more welfare than control oriented (Healy, 2015; Carr, 2016). Given this practice perspective and the history of the development of probation (i.e. as an alternative to custody) (McNally, 2007; 2009), probation officers would be expected to recommend the use of non-custodial over custodial sanctions. Similarly, pre-sentence reports would be expected to focus on the social aspects of the defendant’s situation and to contain information which would assist consideration of the appropriateness of a community based sanction. More recently it has been argued that more emphasis has been placed on control elements in probation practice in response to policy changes that have foregrounded public protection (Fitzgibbon et al., 2010). In Ireland, this is illustrated by the introduction of risk assessment tools in 2004 and by the increasing importance that the Probation Service places on the need to protect the community and provide for public safety (Richardson, 2008; Bracken, 2010; Healy, 2015). An important question is the extent to which pre-sentence reports now prioritise risk assessment over other forms of information and if this is the case, the influence that this may have on judicial sentencing practices. Pre-sentence reports also represent a key point of exchange between two distinct professional groups within the criminal justice system. Probation officers and judges have very different professional backgrounds and training and are likely to view issues from different perspectives. Previous research has explored pre-sentence reports as a form of communication between report writers and judges (Tata et al., 2008; Beyens and Scheirs, 2010; Wandall, 2010). This research is similarly focused on pre-sentence reports as a form of communication between report writers and judges and an important question which we explore is the extent to which the processes of communication embodied in the reports align with the specific aims and objectives of those writing the reports and with the expectations of those receiving and interpreting the reports

Alternatives to Incarceration

Like criminal justice officials throughout the country, Erie County officials and criminal justice system stakeholders are grappling with jail conditions at the Erie County Holding Center and Erie County Correctional Facility that can be summed up in two words: chronic overcrowding. With jail construction costs skyrocketing and the nature of the jail population changing, identifying obstacles in the system that contribute to overcrowding and implementing alternatives to incarceration (ATI) programs have emerged as strategies for managing the inmate population at these two facilities

Interagency training to support the liaison and diversion agenda

Background In England and Wales there are an unacceptably large number of people in prison or in contact with the criminal justice system who have mental health issues. Integrated and effective interagency collaboration is required between the criminal justice system and mental health services to ensure early diagnosis, treatment, appropriate sentencing or diversion of these individuals from the criminal justice systems into mental health services. Liaison and diversion schemes are proposed as a means to integrated service provision through positioning mental health professionals within the criminal justice system. These schemes were recommended by the Bradley Report (2009) to be rolled out for all police custody suites and courts by 2014 in a National Diversion Programme. Working within these schemes, at the interface of the criminal justice system and mental health services, has its challenges (Hean et al., 2009) and the workforce from both systems must be prepared to address these. This was recognised by Bradley when he recommended that: “where appropriate, training should be undertaken jointly with other services to encourage shared understanding and partnership working. Development of training should take place in conjunction with local liaison and diversion services (p111; Bradley, 2009). The form this joint training should take is as yet unexplored. We have proposed elsewhere that joint training should equip different agencies and professionals with the skills and knowledge required to collaborate effectively, and not only focus on mental health awareness courses for those in police, prison and courts services (Hean et al. 2011). The criminal justice system and mental health services need to come together to learn about, from, and with each other in interagency training. Aim We present in this report our vision of what this joint interagency training between the criminal justice and mental health services should contain, how it may be delivered and its potential benefits. We explore the receptiveness of professionals from the criminal justice and mental health services to interagency training and explore their perceptions of the challenges to interagency working between the two systems. We focus particularly on one particular dimension: an interagency crossing boundary workshop and its theoretical underpinnings. We explore professionals’ expectations of this type of intervention as well as their perceptions of the knowledge and skills required to deliver the emerging liaison and diversion agenda in general and the content and delivery of interagency training in the future. These findings are synthesized into a series of recommendations and a model of interagency training that will prepare professionals in both agencies to respond to the liaison and diversion agenda more effectively and work collaboratively in the interest of the mentally ill offender. Method A crossing boundary workshop (Engeström, 2001) was delivered in December 2011 to a sample of 52 professionals from a range of non-health professionals associated with criminal justice system (probation, police and courts) and professionals from the mental health system or health domain (learning disability, substance misuse and mental health services). The receptiveness of criminal justice system and mental health service professionals to interagency training was assessed through the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (Reid et al., 2005) administered to respondents before the workshop. Perceptions of the challenges facing interagency working and the expectations of the workshop were explored through interactive exercises. Professionals from both agencies participated in a series of 6 parallel focus groups to discuss how to prepare the workforce to respond effectively to the liaison/diversion agenda and the constraints they worked under in terms of commissioning, delivering and attending this training. Findings Professionals from both the mental health and criminal justice systems need to build empathic relationships with staff from other agencies. They stressed the importance of actual face-to-face contact between professionals from different agencies to achieve this and saw interagency relationships as being built through increased knowledge of other agencies and the orchestrating of formal facilitated contact between them. They were strongly in favour of interagency training and its contribution to enhanced collaborative competence across the workforce and, in the long term, improved offender mental health. They believed interagency training would develop in the workforce a greater knowledge of other agencies and help them understand other professionals’ roles and responsibilities. They believed interagency training should occur pre-qualification, through into continued professional development and contain a variety of interagency training experiences. Professionals from both systems shared a high level of person centredness in their approach to their practice and stressed the importance of training being grounded and delivered in a real world environment. Participants acknowledged that training opportunities are under threat due to financial and time limitations and that joint commissioning, shared resources and economies of scale must be considered. Recommendations • A training package should be developed to prepare professionals both from the mental health and criminal justice system for the liaison and diversion agenda and integrated service provision. This training must offer a strong interagency component aimed at developing interagency collaboration skills and interagency knowledge. A four-stage training model is proposed in this report. This incorporates pre-registration or undergraduate training for trainee professionals in the mental health services and criminal justice system, general awareness training, interagency training for continuing professional development and the development of interagency reflective practice opportunities. This model may be supplemented by a variety of on-line resources, some of which are described. • These interagency training models should be developed in partnership between universities and local facilitators from within the criminal justice system and mental health services to provide both the theoretical and evidence based rigour associated with developing collaborative practice curricula alongside the real world contextual knowledge required of these programmes. • In the long term, interagency training should be delivered in practice by practitioners to ensure the continued validity and sustainability of these programmes. Training should be sensitive to changes in the workforce due to turnover and the pressures of organisational change. • In times of economic constraint, training should be well targeted at staff and organisations essential to the liaison and diversion agenda. • An interagency commissioning approach will be required to deliver the training package outlined to support the liaison and diversion agenda, and especially if there is to be joint training and sharing of resources

California Community Crime Resistance Program: First Annual Report to the Legislature

I am pleased to present this First Annual Report of the California Community Crime Resistance Program, pursuant to Chapter 578 of 1978 Statutes (SB 2971, Levine). This report is preliminary in nature and contains cumulative results covering the first nine months of the program from October, 1980 through September, 1981. This report describes the cooperative efforts of state and local officials which permitted both local law enforcement agency representatives and community-based agency staff to initiate and extend crime resistance programs pursuant to SB 2971. This report explains the systematic approach to data ·collection and evaluation which is built into the program. Most importantly, the report cites preliminary results which show that substantial progress has been made in implementing the Community Crime Resistance Program so that its goal can be achieved. That goal is to assist local law enforcement officials to provide technical assistance and funds to communities in order to promote neighborhood involvement in anti-crime programs

The significance of 'the visit' in an English category-B prison: Views from prisoners, prisoners' families and prison staff

A number of claims have been made regarding the importance of prisoners staying in touch with their family through prison visits, firstly from a humanitarian perspective of enabling family members to see each other, but also regarding the impact of maintaining family ties for successful rehabilitation, reintegration into society and reduced re-offending. This growing evidence base has resulted in increased support by the Prison Service for encouraging the family unit to remain intact during a prisoner’s incarceration. Despite its importance however, there has been a distinct lack of research examining the dynamics of families visiting relatives in prison. This paper explores perceptions of the same event – the visit – from the families’, prisoners’ and prison staffs' viewpoints in a category-B local prison in England. Qualitative data was collected with 30 prisoners’ families, 16 prisoners and 14 prison staff, as part of a broader evaluation of the visitors’ centre. The findings suggest that the three parties frame their perspective of visiting very differently. Prisoners’ families often see visits as an emotional minefield fraught with practical difficulties. Prisoners can view the visit as the highlight of their time in prison and often have many complaints about how visits are handled. Finally, prison staff see visits as potential security breaches and a major organisational operation. The paper addresses the current gap in our understanding of the prison visit and has implications for the Prison Service and wider social policy

Criminal Justice and Mental Health : An Overview for Students

The intersection of crime and mental health has been a long-standing issue spanning across many decades, even centuries. In more recent times, professionals in the United States have begun to detail the “cracks” within the criminal justice system with better precision, especially in relation to inmates with mental health concerns. Unfortunately, despite the recognition of these cracks and their potential “fixes,” the implementation of change continues to be a struggle. The federal system, state system, and local county/parish jail system each have their own obstacles to overcome. Furthermore, these systems do not always work together for the common cause of public health for various reasons. Even further, integrating the mental health system into the criminal justice system at these levels can at times seem impossible; yet, the capacity for coordinated change has never been more possible. This text serves to educate students and professionals not only on the system of interconnected cracks, but also on the recommendations and innovations set forth by different interests at varying levels of the said system. All of the answers may not have been discovered yet, but the impetus for change is on the horizon for those with mental illness in the criminal justice system. The hopes of change begin with discussion on the problems, particularly in a historical context. This text seeks to be that vehicle for change in the future to ensure the care and safety of justice-involved individuals with mental illness

Report of The Sentencing Project to the United Nations Human Rights Committee Regarding Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System

This report chronicles the racial disparity that permeates every stage of the United States criminal justice system, from arrest to trial to sentencing. In particular, the report highlights the influence of implicit racial bias and recounts the findings of the burgeoning scholarship on the role of such bias in the criminal justice system. The report then details the ways in which the Supreme Court of the United States has curtailed potential remedies by discounting the importance of implicit bias and requiring that intentional discrimination be proven in constitutional challenges. Finally, the report offers recommendations on ways that federal, state, and local officials in the United States can work to eliminate racial disparity in the criminal justice system and uphold its obligations under the Covenant